From: [...] Daniel Vainsencher Of the concerns (things we don't know) stated below, I am even a little worried only by the last. People might decide not to vote, that's true. However, even if few vote the first time, is that a reason to stop running the votes? no, just a reason to improve the system, and advertise more, and give it a few more shots.

I agree entirely.

And improving the system is an option only if we have access to the code.

There is also the option of using different third-party subsystems, or moving to systems that are *less* automated. Not all human systems require automation [although I suspect this one does].

So I think there are still good reasons to develop a voting system, though anyone taking it on should be aware that we have an alternative.

I agree.

About the other concerns - Condorcet is hardly experimental, its been a subject of research of many years.

It has, and its properties are well-known. We may, however, find that an alternative system would have returned a 'better' set of candidates (for some definition of 'better') and change the system we use.

In short, I feel we're wasting time here.

Agree.

If people decide that holding a vote on a specific date is crucial, and there is not alternative ready by then, I won't object to the use of CIVS, it is not a bad alternative.

OK.

Besides that - anyone minds if I ask for volunteers to implement the voting system as proposed on minnow?

Happy to devote time - I'm already working on getting the core trust algorithm in SqP into Smalltalk so that we can bring SqP out of its present Apache module into something that more of the community can hack at. However, I've recently been putting more time into getting the existing vote up and running.

- Peter